coralbleachingatthegbr: Posts

Friday, November 20, 2009

Sources/Reference list

1. What is Coral Bleaching, retrieved October 29, 2009, http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/climate_change/climate_change_and_the_great_barrier_reef/what_is_coral_bleaching

2. Courier Mail Pg. 16, Peter Michael, ‘Corals suffer as acid builds’, (05/03/2008). Retrieved October 29, 2009

3. Coral Bleaching disturbs structure of fish communities, retrieved October 29, 2009 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081028132106.htm

4. About the Great Barrier Reef, retrieved November 3, 2009
http://www.greatbarrierreef.org/about.php’

5. Climate change, coral bleaching, and the future of the worlds reefs, retrieved November 12, 2009,
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=MF99078.pdf

6. Coral reef bleaching, retrieved November 12, 2009,
http://www.marinebiology.org/coralbleaching.htm

Friday, November 20, 2009

Conclusion

Coral bleaching has, and will continue to affect many coral reefs around the world if nothing is done to stop it. The world needs to act quickly or we may lose one of the most stunning and biodiverse areas you will find on this earth. The effects on the marine life that take refuge and use the coral as feeding grounds would be catastrophic, many types of animals depend on the coral to survive, and they would struggle to survive without them. Coral is an integral part of the marine community, and the world can not afford to lose them.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Decision

Proposal one has been chosen as the most appropriate option. It would have a much larger impact on the health of corals in the Great Barrier Reef and the general condition of the reef would improve significantly. Also, the rest of the earth would benefit dramatically from the reduced CO2 emissions and prevention of global warming. Despite being more expensive and time consuming than proposal two, it was decided that proposal one would be more benificial to the reef and to the world for the long term.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Justification

Proposal one:

This proposal would be the most efficient and the best option out of the two. It would have the most impact on stopping the bleaching of coral, and would benefit the entire Great Barrier Reef in an extraordinary way. However, it would be the hardest proposal to implement, it would be a mighty task to cut down CO2 emissions and compress global warming enough to have a significant impact on the corals and the reef. The process would also be extremely expensive; governments would have to spend a lot of money on advertising and planning, also on the implementation of policies and legislations. Businesses would also struggle to function properly.

Proposal two:

This proposal would be the cheaper, faster option, yet it would have a much less significant impact on the prevention of coral bleaching, and would not benefit the overall health of the Great Barrier reef as much as proposal one. It would still be an expensive process, the identification and reproduction of the resilient coral would be a costly project, also to place the corals in the reef would add to the difficulty and cost.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Decision Matrix

PROPOSAL 1

Reduce global warming and prevent climate change. Cut down on pollution and CO2 emissions.

PROPOSAL 2

Identify specific types and heads of coral that survive in conditions which cause most other corals to be bleached. Following the identification of the resilient coral, it is possible to begin assisting coral reproduction through artificial means, and produce only those types of coral.

CRITERIA 1

Will the proposal increase the environmental sustainability?

Ø The temperature of the water would decrease, therefore increasing the coral numbers dramatically.

Ø Increase biodiversity in the Great Barrier Reef.

Ø It would help the Great Barrier Reef survive for the long term, and prevent further coral bleaching in the future.

Ø Not only would it stop coral bleaching, it would help the earth dramatically.

Ø Increase coral numbers, which would provide shelter and feeding grounds for many species of animals.

Ø Increase in biodiversity in the Great Barrier Reef.

Ø It would help the Great Barrier Reef survive for the long term, and prevent further coral bleaching in the future.

CRITERIA 2

Is the proposal economically appropriate and affordable for all?

Ø Loss of income due to the cutting down of CO2 emissions. E.g. factories, motor vehicle companies.

Ø Many people rely on cars/motorbikes/buses to get to work, may not be able afford to give that up.

Ø Governments would have to meet to decide on certain legislations, would be a costly exercise.

Ø To pass laws and legislations on the reduction of global warming and CO2 emissions would be expensive.

Ø The identification and reproduction of those resilient corals will be an expensive project.

Ø Cost of labour would be expensive.

Ø It would help the economy for the long term, if the proposal works, than the Great Barrier Reef will survive longer, putting a lot of money into the tourism industry.

CRITERIA 3

Will the proposal be accepted by the majority of the global community?

Ø Businesses may not want to cut production for the sake of reducing global warming.

Ø Many people rely on cars/motorbikes/buses for their jobs or lifestyle.

Ø Not all people may want legislation that stops their country from global warming and emitting CO2, as the industries that do that can earn nations lots of money.

Ø Majority of people with an environmental conscience would support this move for the reduction of CO2 emissions and global warming.

Ø There is no reason for the community to have a problem with this proposal; however it may cost taxpayers large sums of money. Some people may not want to pay that money for the sake of the corals at the Great Barrier Reef, however most people would certainly sacrifice that money to help the environment.